This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Originally Posted by Audiophile

It's obvious most of the people on here are clueless, they don't understand this isn't about rights or whatever but about fags trying to destroy the family and as we all know the family (it's not "individuals", get a clue) is the bedrock of civilization. Fags live short, dangerous and unhealthy lives in addition to the fact that homosexuality is a perversion (as well as a mental disorder). The State should be promoting values that protect and strengthen the family and civilization in general, not sanctifying perverts. "Gay marriage" will also open the door to a form of legalized child abuse, that being "gay adoption". Homosexuality is a perversion that goes against all decency and as well as against nature. No amount of State power can normalize or make this perversion acceptable.

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Originally Posted by OscarB63

but equal rights is. you can't argue gay marriage in a vacuum.

And few are doing so. Many people have explained why the two arguments are different, including why there is a difference in the possible harm caused by each. You have to include in the argument what the state's interest is in any discrimination.

In the case of incest, you can bring up the point of the state not wanting to encourage breeding of children who would have an increase in genetic defects and/or encourage relationships that could be psychologically harmful to one or both of those involved in the relationship. These may not be enough to actually discriminate against people who want to be involved in an incest relationship, but that is for the courts to weigh. Personally, I believe they are enough, especially the second one when it comes to incest laws most of the time (should be some exceptions though). Also, another thing to consider is that incest is illegal in most states. We are not just talking about not allowing incest marriages here, but also changing laws on the legality of incest itself.

Those who have argued against same sex marriage have yet to provide an argument that shows how the marriage alone could be harmful in some way like those who are arguing against incest. Homosexual relationships are completely legal, so it cannot be the relationships themselves that are causing the harm. It must be something in the context of just them being allowed to marry, not considering the relationship alone.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

This article makes a good case against gay marriage from a secular point of view. Not all people argue against "gay marriage" for religious reasons.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Adam Kolasinski

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

And this fails to take into account the fact that there are 5 states that specifically limit marriage between certain couples (1st cousins) to being available only if the couple is over a certain age and/or cannot procreate with each other. And the federal government still recognizes all those couples as legally married couples, despite the state knowing that those couples cannot have children together.

Not only that, but the SCOTUS has ruled that incarcerated people can get married, no matter when they might get out of prison and that marriage is not just about having children and is necessary for the legal rights that it gives to each in the relationship.

No state has a single question about whether either person on the contract knowingly cannot procreate, nor a question even about their intents to procreate. If the most important interest the state had in legal marriage and denying it to same sex couples was procreation (since same sex couples can raise children), then there would be at least one of these two questions, if not both, on the marriage license or asked by the clerk when a couple went to apply for their license.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Originally Posted by roguenuke

And few are doing so. Many people have explained why the two arguments are different, including why there is a difference in the possible harm caused by each. You have to include in the argument what the state's interest is in any discrimination.

In the case of incest, you can bring up the point of the state not wanting to encourage breeding of children who would have an increase in genetic defects and/or encourage relationships that could be psychologically harmful to one or both of those involved in the relationship.

and yet the state does not prohibit marriage between unrelated individuals who have a higher risk of passing on genetic disorders. I have a cousin who's youngest child has williamson syndrome. they knew she was at risk for having a child with this disorder and the govt didn't prevent her from getting married and having kids. what's the difference?

Those who have argued against same sex marriage have yet to provide an argument that shows how the marriage alone could be harmful in some way like those who are arguing against incest. .

incestuous marriage in and of itself is no more harmful than gay marriage. all they need to do is use BC or have one partner sterilzed and the "tarded baby" arguement goes out the window. or, for that matter, how is it going to harm you if I marry my cousin and we have a kid with a genetic disorder?

incestuous marriages may not contribute viable offspring to the genepool...but, then again, neither do gay marriages

Also, another thing to consider is that incest is illegal in most states. We are not just talking about not allowing incest marriages here, but also changing laws on the legality of incest itself.

FWIW....sodomy is still illegal in many states. are you going to tell gays that they can get married but they can't have sex?

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Originally Posted by OscarB63

and yet the state does not prohibit marriage between unrelated individuals who have a higher risk of passing on genetic disorders. I have a cousin who's youngest child has williamson syndrome. they knew she was at risk for having a child with this disorder and the govt didn't prevent her from getting married and having kids. what's the difference?

incestuous marriage in and of itself is no more harmful than gay marriage. all they need to do is use BC or have one partner sterilzed and the "tarded baby" arguement goes out the window.

That would be for the courts to decide as to whether or not the state has a valid argument to keep incest illegal, and along with that deny incest marriages. That would have to include the fact that the level of scrutiny is lower for such a relation than the level of scrutiny for same sex marriage bans. I believe that the state makes a good case for allowing incest laws to remain in effect. Perhaps the SCOTUS would disagree with me. I honestly wouldn't consider it a big deal if they did, since at least some people who really aren't harming anyone (those incestuous relationships that do not include some sort of abuse or harm to one of the two involved) would be getting their right to marry who they want to.

So far, people still have not presented a valid argument for what state interest (at the proper scrutiny level) is being met by banning SSM.

Originally Posted by OscarB63

FWIW....sodomy is still illegal in many states. are you going to tell gays that they can get married but they can't have sex?

Those sodomy laws may be on the books, but they are not valid. The SCOTUS case Lawrence v TX invalidated all those laws as violation of privacy, even the military mentioned the SCOTUS decision for its current enforcement of only non-consentual sodomy. Let them try to say that and it would not even be considered a valid argument by the SCOTUS because of the previous decision.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Originally Posted by Audiophile

It's obvious most of the people on here are clueless, they don't understand this isn't about rights or whatever but about fags trying to destroy the family and as we all know the family (it's not "individuals", get a clue) is the bedrock of civilization. Fags live short, dangerous and unhealthy lives in addition to the fact that homosexuality is a perversion (as well as a mental disorder). The State should be promoting values that protect and strengthen the family and civilization in general, not sanctifying perverts. "Gay marriage" will also open the door to a form of legalized child abuse, that being "gay adoption". Homosexuality is a perversion that goes against all decency and as well as against nature. No amount of State power can normalize or make this perversion acceptable.

There is absolutely no need to refer to gay people by the perjorative "fag". Any legit argument you may have is drowned out by your obvious intent to inflame. Also, I may have my reservations about gay marriage, but I, in no way believe that gays are wanting or trying to destroy marriage. That makes no sense when gays are wanting to be a part of the institution you claim they wish to destroy. If you have nothing of substance to add, kindly take a hike.

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Originally Posted by Audiophile

It's obvious most of the people on here are clueless, they don't understand this isn't about rights or whatever but about fags trying to destroy the family and as we all know the family (it's not "individuals", get a clue) is the bedrock of civilization. Fags live short, dangerous and unhealthy lives in addition to the fact that homosexuality is a perversion (as well as a mental disorder). The State should be promoting values that protect and strengthen the family and civilization in general, not sanctifying perverts. "Gay marriage" will also open the door to a form of legalized child abuse, that being "gay adoption". Homosexuality is a perversion that goes against all decency and as well as against nature. No amount of State power can normalize or make this perversion acceptable.

Yadda yadda yadda. Same boring arguments. Fags trying to destroy the family? How so? One in every five gay couples has children. Fags live short lives? Depends on how they live them. You run around having unprotected sex, whether you are straight or gay, you are probably going to live a short life. Homosexuality a mental disorder? Pretty hard to justify that one when the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Association of Counselors, and the National Association of Social Workers all disagree. Homosexuality is perverted? Not anymore so that what average heterosexual person does in the bedroom, at least as far as Judeo-Christian vales are concerned. Gay adoption is child abuse? Funny, 30 years of research has shown that children raised by same sex parents do just as well as those raised by opposite sex couples. Homosexuality goes against decency? Whose decency? The kind of decency of a person who comes on an internet forum and calls an entire group of people a derogatory name just because he knows he can't be held accountable for it? Homosexuality is against nature? Whose definition of nature? It certainly occurs in nature, in hundreds of species of animals. But who cares? Does being natural make something good or bad? Driving and flying airplanes is unnatural and we certainly don't consider those things bad.

This is just the typical rant of a person who has never given a moment of thought to why he believes what he believes. I feel nothing but pity for people who make fools of themselves in this fashion.